Palo Alto: Controversial mixed-use project wins approval

Despite the objections of nearby residents, a mixed-use project is moving forward at 385 Sherman Ave. in Palo Alto.

On Thursday, the Architectural Review Board voted 3-2 in favor of Daniel Minkoff's proposal to replace an existing 21,600-square-foot office building with one that is more than twice as big. The 55,566-square-foot building would include four apartments that overlook Sarah Wallis Park.

The majority -- Lee Lippert, Clare Malone Pritchard and Randy Popp -- lauded the developer for revising the project in response to feedback provided by the board and the public over the past several months. Key changes included lowering the height of the building from 50 feet to 42 feet 8 inches and selecting taller trees to screen the project from the adjacent Birch Court apartment complex.

Popp, the board's vice chairman, also pointed out that Minkoff wasn't seeking any exceptions and that the project was actually smaller than what he could build under the existing zoning.

"We are often presented with projects that seek to exceed the limitations of our zoning regulations and there is much in the press lately about managing projects that are at the limit or go beyond the limit of what is allowed," he said. "I happen to believe that this is a very good project."

However, several Birch Court residents felt the opposite.

"While I do appreciate that the roof is lower and that taller trees were chosen, the latest version of plans leave what I consider serious concerns unresolved and even unaddressed," said Anne Steinle.

Advertisement

Steinle said a major sticking point was a nearly 900-square-foot second-floor deck for office workers and the noise it could potentially generate. She argued that it was unnecessary.

"But we do need our decks and we have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of our homes," said Steinle, who spoke on the behalf of several residents.

Choking up, she added, "I hope to retire in a year and I want to sit outside my home in what is now the quiet, sunny side, and I want to hear the wind in the birches. I don't want to listen to other people's conversations every day. I think the only solution is to remove the deck or remove access."

Popp said he didn't believe people who live in a "semi-urban environment" have a "right to silence."

"You need to expect that there's going to be some noise," he added. "You need to expect that you're going to have neighbors."

The latest version of the project calls for a glass wall surrounding the deck to be raised to 8 feet to contain noise.

"You don't end up with huge parties out on these decks," Minkoff added. "They're just not that big."

Board Member Robert Gooyer said the changes to the project were not enough to win his support.

"From the first time I saw this project, I've thought it was an inappropriate solution for this particular site," said Gooyer, who joined Board Member Alex Lew in casting the dissenting votes.

"I think the building is too large," he continued. "I think it's too close and overpowering to the residential units adjacent to it."

Before calling for the vote, Lippert, the board's chairman, said he didn't believe a better project was possible at the site, an apparent warning to those who might consider appealing it to the City Council.

"It meets the requirements and the findings the city has set forth and as such I don't have a problem in approving this," Lippert said. "What does frighten me is if the project is denied by the City Council -- if it is appealed and then denied -- what we might wind up with."